Champion of the Sun:jj325: I will not buy the idea that Joe Paterno was a "confused old man" in 2001.

He was 75 and there was a bunch of pressure on the university to fire him for being out of it. They had a few bad seasons in a row there, most people attributed it to his old age.

Dude deserved to lose his legacy and all, but I don't see enough evidence to say the guy was part of a conspiracy to cover up the allegations. His bosses, yeah without a doubt. And McCreary was young and of a sound mind, why isn't he some huge pariah? Cause he told his boss about it. And his boss told his boss. The main bosses covered it up, which the evidence clearly shows.

JoePa didn't call the police and tell them that Sandusky raped at least one boy in the shower. He had several years to do so. That's called a cover-up.

gimmegimme:Calm down, friend. I don't want to put words in the mouths of other farkers, but some seem to be saying that the overwhelming evidence proves that Paterno facilitated child rape for over a decade. Therefore, Joe Paterno didn't facilitate child rape.

Khellendros:How is that not horrific? When you become aware someone in your employ is raping children, never is there a moment where you hand it off and consider it done, unless that hand-off is to the police and a DA. There's never a moment where "my boss is handling it" is a valid exit from that situation. We're not talking about a guy stealing money from the till or sleeping through his shift.

I don't think that was what he was told though. Just something amiss in the showers. And he fulfilled his legal duty to report it to his superiors. They screwed up.

A Fark Handle:it's pretty clear they joepa among others told sandusky to go rape boys somewhere else. hence the whole, no more using the facilities. they knew, they didn't care. fark 'em.

But he kept using the facilities. If JoePa knew what was going on and was actively covering it up, pretty foolish to let the guy hang around.

It's a pretty heinous allegation, I imagine it's pretty easy to think there's nothing to it if you report it to your boss, they investigate it, and then the guy is still hanging around. Probably figured that it was taken care of by the administration and there was nothing to it. The administration though, they should be crucified.

Tommy Moo:gimmegimme: Calm down, friend. I don't want to put words in the mouths of other farkers, but some seem to be saying that the overwhelming evidence proves that Paterno facilitated child rape for over a decade. Therefore, Joe Paterno didn't facilitate child rape.

[i580.photobucket.com image 197x151]

I was making light of the kind of reasoning used by Penn State/JoePa defenders.

gimmegimme:JoePa didn't call the police and tell them that Sandusky raped at least one boy in the shower. He had several years to do so. That's called a cover-up.

He also didn't tell the police how long Sandusky's cock was either, because he didn't know any of those facts. He told his bosses, they covered it up. There's a chance he was in on the cover up, but there's no evidence of that. A tiny shred of proof should be offered to back up the claim that he was involved in actively covering it up. What they've shown is that two people did cover it up, and they referenced talking to him about the incident, and not the cover up. They had two emails regarding the incident as proof of a cover up. Every other piece of correspondence was lost due to a computer system error.

It's a huge jump in culpability from hearing about suspicious horseplay in the shower to being involved in a conspiracy to cover up child rape.

Champion of the Sun:gimmegimme: JoePa didn't call the police and tell them that Sandusky raped at least one boy in the shower. He had several years to do so. That's called a cover-up.

He also didn't tell the police how long Sandusky's cock was either, because he didn't know any of those facts. He told his bosses, they covered it up. There's a chance he was in on the cover up, but there's no evidence of that. A tiny shred of proof should be offered to back up the claim that he was involved in actively covering it up. What they've shown is that two people did cover it up, and they referenced talking to him about the incident, and not the cover up. They had two emails regarding the incident as proof of a cover up. Every other piece of correspondence was lost due to a computer system error.

It's a huge jump in culpability from hearing about suspicious horseplay in the shower to being involved in a conspiracy to cover up child rape.

You're absolutely right. If someone I trust tells me they saw my buddy raping a child, I'm immediately going to tell my boss and then completely forget about it after that.

Champion of the Sun:gimmegimme: Come now; McQueary made it clear he saw rape, not just horseplay.

He made it clear to the grand jury, but not Paterno. He didn't want to upset Paterno so he told him something of a sexual nature was happening.

He said he did not give Paterno explicit details of what he believed he'd seen, saying he wouldn't have used terms like sodomy or anal intercourse out of respect for the longtime coach.

I don't want to defend JoePa, but labeling him as a conspirator in the cover up of child rape is a big allegation to make when there's no proof he did that.

I guess you're right. If someone told me that my buddy was doing "something of a sexual nature" to a young boy, I would tell my boss and then completely forget about it without asking another question ever.

ha-ha-guy:Lets see, the motive behind ordering the Freeh report was so the PSU Board of Trustees could get an idea on how bad of a situation they were in and react accordingly.

The trustees accepted it as gospel immediately upon being given it. They wanted someone to blame besides the institution. Once they had it in hand and it made the President, AD, and JoePa look bad they had what they wanted. That's why the PA governor is suing over it. The trustees wanted the issue over with as quick as possible instead of finding out the faults of the school and the administration. Once they were given even a semblance of justification, they canned the people named and acted like perfectly innocent parties. So they had much more reason to lie.

There's no benefit to the Paterno family outside of the restoration of his name. They didn't stand to lose any money no matter how this turned out. They're not liable for any civil suits and his pension and contract were ironclad. I don't think there's any lasting sponsorship money the family would've been interested. They spent their money to clear his name for no pecuniary gain.

Champion of the Sun:ha-ha-guy: Lets see, the motive behind ordering the Freeh report was so the PSU Board of Trustees could get an idea on how bad of a situation they were in and react accordingly.

The trustees accepted it as gospel immediately upon being given it. They wanted someone to blame besides the institution. Once they had it in hand and it made the President, AD, and JoePa look bad they had what they wanted. That's why the PA governor is suing over it. The trustees wanted the issue over with as quick as possible instead of finding out the faults of the school and the administration. Once they were given even a semblance of justification, they canned the people named and acted like perfectly innocent parties. So they had much more reason to lie.

There's no benefit to the Paterno family outside of the restoration of his name. They didn't stand to lose any money no matter how this turned out. They're not liable for any civil suits and his pension and contract were ironclad. I don't think there's any lasting sponsorship money the family would've been interested. They spent their money to clear his name for no pecuniary gain.

It doesn't bother you that Sandusky was still hanging out in the luxury boxes until the day the scandal came out? You don't see that Paterno was part of the reason that Sandusky was still allowed to use the rape showers until the day the scandal came out? Sure, they had already asked Sandusky to go rape children somewhere else, but still.

Paterno knew that Sandusky had, as you admitted, engaged in at least some kind of sexual act with a child on campus and Paterno knew about the previous allegations. But Paterno did nothing other than tell his boss.

And aren't you sickened that Paterno was able to make all of those millions even though he was facilitating child rape all those years? It's not "blood money," but it's something close.

I was going to sub this earlier today, but I decided against it. Glad to see someone someone picked up where my lack of troll work left off.

This family and their "grandfather of morals" is about 25% as disturbing as the child-rape that took place. I certainly hope that the family of this coke-bottled lens wearing POS kid-farking enabler would get raped, dry, balls deep in the ass by the big black cack of justice.

gimmegimme:I guess you're right. If someone told me that my buddy was doing "something of a sexual nature" to a young boy, I would tell my boss and then completely forget about it without asking another question ever.

Yeah, I would report it to the police too. But as far as I know, neither of us in a 75 year old man who is in charge of a multi-million dollar enterprise. A decrepit old football coach was told this information, he put it in the hands of his bosses and the campus police. Should he have called the state police instead? Is calling 911 better than telling a police chief?

But a grad assistant coach told him an incredible story, he told his bosses, they said they'd investigate it and take care of it. He told the right people about it. It wasn't morally enough, probably. I just don't see how it's cool to say he conspired to cover up child rape based on what he knew about the situation. His bosses for sure though, they knew more about it and worked to cover it up.

He deserves to lose his legacy, perfectly reasonable to say he didn't do enough.

Champion of the Sun:gimmegimme: I guess you're right. If someone told me that my buddy was doing "something of a sexual nature" to a young boy, I would tell my boss and then completely forget about it without asking another question ever.

Yeah, I would report it to the police too. But as far as I know, neither of us in a 75 year old man who is in charge of a multi-million dollar enterprise. A decrepit old football coach was told this information, he put it in the hands of his bosses and the campus police. Should he have called the state police instead? Is calling 911 better than telling a police chief?

But a grad assistant coach told him an incredible story, he told his bosses, they said they'd investigate it and take care of it. He told the right people about it. It wasn't morally enough, probably. I just don't see how it's cool to say he conspired to cover up child rape based on what he knew about the situation. His bosses for sure though, they knew more about it and worked to cover it up.

He deserves to lose his legacy, perfectly reasonable to say he didn't do enough.

Paterno did not call the "police." He called the guy who orders Post-its for the police. If someone is breaking into my home, I'm not, for example, going to call the HR rep for the policemen's union. I'm going to call the police.

And if he knew that Sandusky had raped children and took no action to bring Sandusky to justice (as you concede), how is he not part of the cover-up?

gimmegimme:It doesn't bother you that Sandusky was still hanging out in the luxury boxes until the day the scandal came out? You don't see that Paterno was part of the reason that Sandusky was still allowed to use the rape showers until the day the scandal came out? Sure, they had already asked Sandusky to go rape children somewhere else, but still.

Paterno knew that Sandusky had, as you admitted, engaged in at least some kind of sexual act with a child on campus and Paterno knew about the previous allegations. But Paterno did nothing other than tell his boss.

Someone alleged to Paterno that Sandusky did that. If he was told the actual details of it, then yes. But he was told something weird happened. He told his bosses. He always maintained that he didn't know what really happened. It would be a safe assumption on his part to assume it was a misunderstanding after trusting the word of his bosses that they'd investigate it. The fact that Sandusky was still around probably made Paterno think there was a simple misunderstanding. If his bosses investigated it, with the university police, and let the guy hang around, safe to assume there was nothing to it. Mcqueary is the one who actually saw the rape, and he didn't do anything about Sandusky hanging around the program for another decade. Perhaps his silence reassured Paterno every time he looked crooked at Sandusky?

Champion of the Sun:gimmegimme: It doesn't bother you that Sandusky was still hanging out in the luxury boxes until the day the scandal came out? You don't see that Paterno was part of the reason that Sandusky was still allowed to use the rape showers until the day the scandal came out? Sure, they had already asked Sandusky to go rape children somewhere else, but still.

Paterno knew that Sandusky had, as you admitted, engaged in at least some kind of sexual act with a child on campus and Paterno knew about the previous allegations. But Paterno did nothing other than tell his boss.

Someone alleged to Paterno that Sandusky did that. If he was told the actual details of it, then yes. But he was told something weird happened. He told his bosses. He always maintained that he didn't know what really happened. It would be a safe assumption on his part to assume it was a misunderstanding after trusting the word of his bosses that they'd investigate it. The fact that Sandusky was still around probably made Paterno think there was a simple misunderstanding. If his bosses investigated it, with the university police, and let the guy hang around, safe to assume there was nothing to it. Mcqueary is the one who actually saw the rape, and he didn't do anything about Sandusky hanging around the program for another decade. Perhaps his silence reassured Paterno every time he looked crooked at Sandusky?

I just don't understand how you can look at the timeline and make a zillion excuse that allow you to believe that Joe Paterno, the mastermind of Penn State, had absolutely no idea about the serial child rapist on campus until the scandal came out.

Ha, ha, ha - LMAO - you're so cutting edge. You mean kids get abused by public school teachers, neighbors, and non-Catholic university officials and you didn't know? Wow, your comedy is so fresh and progressive,Regardless of what Joe did Sandusky was bringing kids on campus, and to games, up until 2010. Even if he just heard rumors he had the power to keep Sandusky away. And he didn't.

puffy999:gimmegimme: And aren't you sickened that Paterno was able to make all of those millions even though he was facilitating child rape all those years? It's not "blood money," but it's something close.

I was going to make a really really really awful joke, but even I'm having second thoughts.

gimmegimme:I just don't understand how you can look at the timeline and make a zillion excuse that allow you to believe that Joe Paterno, the mastermind of Penn State, had absolutely no idea about the serial child rapist on campus until the scandal came out.

The timeline.

Was Paterno willfully blind or stupid? These are really the only options if you reject "a facilitator of child rape who covered it up for over a decade."

Read that for yourself, nothing in it shows Paterno knew anything more than something weird happening in the shower. He's the mastermind of Penn State football, not investigations into sexual assault. He told his bosses, they said they'd investigate it. I've said repeatedly he didn't do enough, but he didn't cover anything up. He told his three superiors about it. They actually did cover it up, there's actually proof of that. I see a large number of people who had actual knowledge of child rape who did nothing. Paterno was told of something fishy, and reported it.

Ha, ha, ha - LMAO - you're so cutting edge. You mean kids get abused by public school teachers, neighbors, and non-Catholic university officials and you didn't know? Wow, your comedy is so fresh and progressive,Regardless of what Joe did Sandusky was bringing kids on campus, and to games, up until 2010. Even if he just heard rumors he had the power to keep Sandusky away. And he didn't.

fatalvenom:Agatha Crispy: RDixon: When did Penn State become a Catholic school?

Ha, ha, ha - LMAO - you're so cutting edge. You mean kids get abused by public school teachers, neighbors, and non-Catholic university officials and you didn't know? Wow, your comedy is so fresh and progressive,Regardless of what Joe did Sandusky was bringing kids on campus, and to games, up until 2010. Even if he just heard rumors he had the power to keep Sandusky away. And he didn't.

Seriously, nobody in their right mind would hear that and not have warning bells going off.

Let's take an unassailable person... Mr. Rogers... you have heard he was in the shower with a young boy, something weird was happening in the shower... and you still think, perfectly innocent, it's Mr. Rogers.

Hell no. You think, WTF? Then you confront a person you've known since they PLAYED for PSU, the guy who was meant to be your replacement, until something "weird happened" in the shower with another boy 14 years earlier... if you've been deaf to all the rumors hovering around your buddy Jerry for the previous 20 years, you probably get a light flickering on...

One thing you do not do is play it down when you pass it on to your superiors, and henceforth ignore it, if you do not condone that sort of thing.

On the other hand, if you were aware your buddy had some "bad habits" that might affect your beloved football program and your legacy, should they ever see the light, you might rely on the same administration guys who covered it up before and hope it all blows over once more. Hell, that assessment is being generous, because there are a lot of worse possibilities that come to mind.

puffy999:Champion of the Sun: And McCreary was young and of a sound mind, why isn't he some huge pariah?

To me, he's the one person who had the greatest chance to put a stop to all of this, and he didn't do it.

I mean, AFTER that event, and other events that eventually became more publicized, the administrators and AD and Paterno really, really blew it to a much grander degree. But all of it could have ended in that shower/locker room.

No, the administration had the greatest chance to stop it all, for two reasons.

1. It was going on long before McCreary witnessed anything. If it had stopped there, Sandusky would still have had access to victims from 1977 to 2001.

2. It can very intimidating being told by your boss not to involve yourself anymore. It doesn't excuse him, but it's more understandable. To Godwin this, it's like blaming those who were "just following orders" more than the Nazi leadership because they could have refused. It's true, and they should have, but the greater blame always lies with those in authority.

Champion of the Sun:gimmegimme: I just don't understand how you can look at the timeline and make a zillion excuse that allow you to believe that Joe Paterno, the mastermind of Penn State, had absolutely no idea about the serial child rapist on campus until the scandal came out.

The timeline.

Was Paterno willfully blind or stupid? These are really the only options if you reject "a facilitator of child rape who covered it up for over a decade."

Read that for yourself, nothing in it shows Paterno knew anything more than something weird happening in the shower. He's the mastermind of Penn State football, not investigations into sexual assault. He told his bosses, they said they'd investigate it. I've said repeatedly he didn't do enough, but he didn't cover anything up. He told his three superiors about it. They actually did cover it up, there's actually proof of that. I see a large number of people who had actual knowledge of child rape who did nothing. Paterno was told of something fishy, and reported it.

Is it possible Paterno really didn't know through no fault of his own? I suppose. There's no real hard proof I guess.

But is it likely? Am I going to give him the benefit of the doubt? No. This is the court of public opinion, and I (along with most people) have chosen to convict him. This isn't a court of law. Paterno was the face of PSU, and Paternos' assistant coach abused children and was still welcome on campus until Sandusky finally got arrested. GUILTY.

The only defense I'm making of him is that there's no proof he affirmatively covered up child rape. Read all the comments here, people just throw that out there like it's gospel. There's tons of doubt as to that.

I don't see why he would think the college would be hurt by Sandusky getting arrested at the time. There's nothing but risk in covering up the abuse. He doesn't want to hurt the college, so he does something that can only hurt the college? There's no personal threat to him in Sandusky getting arrested. I don't see much threat to the university or football program either. He cares so much about the football program, that he takes the only course of action that could cause it danger?

SkittlesAreYum:puffy999: Champion of the Sun: And McCreary was young and of a sound mind, why isn't he some huge pariah?

To me, he's the one person who had the greatest chance to put a stop to all of this, and he didn't do it.

I mean, AFTER that event, and other events that eventually became more publicized, the administrators and AD and Paterno really, really blew it to a much grander degree. But all of it could have ended in that shower/locker room.

No, the administration had the greatest chance to stop it all, for two reasons.

1. It was going on long before McCreary witnessed anything. If it had stopped there, Sandusky would still have had access to victims from 1977 to 2001.

2. It can very intimidating being told by your boss not to involve yourself anymore. It doesn't excuse him, but it's more understandable. To Godwin this, it's like blaming those who were "just following orders" more than the Nazi leadership because they could have refused. It's true, and they should have, but the greater blame always lies with those in authority.

That fear and intimidation makes sense for McCreary. But Paterno was the single most powerful man at Penn State. He's not going to be intimidated by administrators who have more to fear from him than he has from them. You may as well say that Kobe Bryant was intimidated by Michael Brown.

Champion of the Sun:I don't see why he would think the college would be hurt by Sandusky getting arrested at the time.

Well, the obvious is that mud spatters. Reporters are vultures, and sports pundits are worse... but we could think the worse... that Sandusky had leverage on Paterno that might have been exposed if he'd been put in front of a jury because Joe reported him; or we could simply assume that Paterno feared his light-handed tactics in dealing with his buddy might come to light, and it was too late to really do much more than try and remove access to school property (which they didn't do very well, at any rate).

I think it's silly to think Paterno had no motivation NOT to turn in a guy he knew for 35+ years, particularly when you are a high profile, "legendary" football coach that is idolized everywhere you go.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that Paterno had no clues about Sandusky's true nature, at any rate. Penn State students involved in athletics seemed to be somewhat aware that Jerry Sandusky was a weirdo to be avoided. It's very possible his crimes go back to his playing days, though he might have had an easier time hiding it back then (indeed, it probably emboldened him to expand his "play time" to PSU facilities and found Second Mile). It certainly IS possible that, as an assistant coach, Paterno might have been involved in some informal discipline of player Jerry Sandusky for some strange behavior with a young boy in 1964. Too many coaches in every sport, at every level, often are willing to overlook troubling behavior (including drug and alcohol abuse, PEDs, domestic abuse, fake girlfriends, etc...) because of their value to a program. We've already been made aware by former Penn State officials that Paterno insisted on handling all disciplinary actions 'internally' - which pretty much insures that we will never know the extent Paterno covered up crimes by other coaches and players in the program, and why his program looked so "clean" for decades.

The only defense I'm making of him is that there's no proof he affirmatively covered up child rape. Read all the comments here, people just throw that out there like it's gospel. There's tons of doubt as to that.

I don't see why he would think the college would be hurt by Sandusky getting arrested at the time. There's nothing but risk in covering up the abuse. He doesn't want to hurt the college, so he does something that can only hurt the college? There's no personal threat to him in Sandusky getting arrested. I don't see much threat to the university or football program either. He cares so much about the football program, that he takes the only course of action that could cause it danger?

Dude, if Paterno had run directly from his meeting with McQueary to the first TV camera he could find, shouting SANDUSKY IS A CHILD RAPIST AND MUST BE STOPPED! GO ARREST HIM NOW!, then we would all have been calling him a hero.

Instead, he's a child rape facilitator who helped to cover up serial child rape for at least a decade.

Somacandra:Peter von Nostrand: Joe ran cover for a pedo. No amount of reports attacking the people who investigated it will change that fact

That's the long and short of it. No amount of dressing up is going to polish that turd.

but but but Paterno was an incompetent moron who spoke to no one and sat in a darkened office when he wasn't on the sidelines for a game. He had no influence at Penn State whatsoever and spent the last fifteen years of his coaching career doddling along like a geriatric Alzheimer's patient, just trying not to drool on himself.

gimmegimme:Champion of the Sun: jj325: I will not buy the idea that Joe Paterno was a "confused old man" in 2001.

He was 75 and there was a bunch of pressure on the university to fire him for being out of it. They had a few bad seasons in a row there, most people attributed it to his old age.

Dude deserved to lose his legacy and all, but I don't see enough evidence to say the guy was part of a conspiracy to cover up the allegations. His bosses, yeah without a doubt. And McCreary was young and of a sound mind, why isn't he some huge pariah? Cause he told his boss about it. And his boss told his boss. The main bosses covered it up, which the evidence clearly shows.

JoePa didn't call the police and tell them that Sandusky raped at least one boy in the shower. He had several years to do so. That's called a cover-up.

OH MY FARKING GOD!!!!! That's also called hearsay! He can't call the police as he didn't witness anything and what was supposedly told to him and what he understood is still not clear (besides what did McQueary actually see - that story has changed so many times). Mike McQueary should have been advised to go to the authorities by his father, Paterno, Curly and Schultz. The fact that it got up the to university president and then still nothing is a farking travesty. Even worse - they had a plan to go to the authorities and then someone went complete pussy and decided to handle the matter in house. Was Paterno complicit in a cover up? - Maybe, from reading Posnanski's biography of Paterno, I get the feeling Paterno was a grumpy old man at that point in time whose only concern in life was holding on to the head coaching job. Does that excuse him, fark no. But the decisions made at that point in time also have to weigh on McQueary, Spanier, Curly, and Schultz. And let's not forget the BOT. Where the hell where they during all this? So spare me the "this is all Joe Paterno's fault". There is plenty of blame to go around...

schuylkill:gimmegimme: Champion of the Sun: jj325: I will not buy the idea that Joe Paterno was a "confused old man" in 2001.

He was 75 and there was a bunch of pressure on the university to fire him for being out of it. They had a few bad seasons in a row there, most people attributed it to his old age.

Dude deserved to lose his legacy and all, but I don't see enough evidence to say the guy was part of a conspiracy to cover up the allegations. His bosses, yeah without a doubt. And McCreary was young and of a sound mind, why isn't he some huge pariah? Cause he told his boss about it. And his boss told his boss. The main bosses covered it up, which the evidence clearly shows.

JoePa didn't call the police and tell them that Sandusky raped at least one boy in the shower. He had several years to do so. That's called a cover-up.

OH MY FARKING GOD!!!!! That's also called hearsay! He can't call the police as he didn't witness anything and what was supposedly told to him and what he understood is still not clear (besides what did McQueary actually see - that story has changed so many times). Mike McQueary should have been advised to go to the authorities by his father, Paterno, Curly and Schultz. The fact that it got up the to university president and then still nothing is a farking travesty. Even worse - they had a plan to go to the authorities and then someone went complete pussy and decided to handle the matter in house. Was Paterno complicit in a cover up? - Maybe, from reading Posnanski's biography of Paterno, I get the feeling Paterno was a grumpy old man at that point in time whose only concern in life was holding on to the head coaching job. Does that excuse him, fark no. But the decisions made at that point in time also have to weigh on McQueary, Spanier, Curly, and Schultz. And let's not forget the BOT. Where the hell where they during all this? So spare me the "this is all Joe Paterno's fault". There is plenty of blame to go around...

Uh, people calling the cops don't have to worry about whether or not something was hearsay...that would be dumb. If someone tells me "My friend killed his girlfriend", it would be perfectly fine for me to call the cops - in fact, it would be my moral obligation if no one else has. The only people who have to worry about whether something was hearsay or not are the cops and the lawyers...but I'm pretty sure they would have gone to McQueary for his eye-witness statement to avoid that problem.

...huh. I thought the entire point is that no one on it even slightly cares about anyone who actually got molested by Sandusky. You're all here to hunt your witches, fark your chickens, and beat your dead horses. This report isn't changing anyone's opinion, but it does give people the chance to act as though they're morally superior. And that's the real point of this thread: Everyone gets to say "hey, I never raped a kid nor covered up someone else raping a kid!" Well, bra-vo! You want your "normal human being" ribbon mailed to you?

All I see before me are about 100 posts from people who either can't let it go or are intentionally baiting those that can't let it go.

Now, hold on there a minute. You're accepting as prima facie accurate a document put out by the family of the person whose name they're trying to clear? You seem to normally have better judgment than that. Would you take at face value an NRA document that stated, "No evidence exists that Assault Rifles exacerbate mass shootings"? Of course not. So why take this as being definitive?

Now, hold on there a minute. You're accepting as prima facie accurate a document put out by the family of the person whose name they're trying to clear? You seem to normally have better judgment than that. Would you take at face value an NRA document that stated, "No evidence exists that Assault Rifles exacerbate mass shootings"? Of course not. So why take this as being definitive?

If you read the ESPN article, you would know why your comment is so farking stupid.

Only one person involved had any connection to the Paterno family, and that one person's relationship was described as "not close." They were also directed to investigate and find the truth, regardless of positive or negative. Can the Freeh report say that? Based on this reports findings, and the obvious, glaring bias, non-factual conclusions the Freeh report makes, I would say "probably not."

I have no affiliation to Penn State or anyone who ever went there. I just hate public media witch burnings that are entirely devoid and ignorant of facts. Because as someone above said, they don't want or care about the facts. Everyone just wants to feel morally superior and blame anyone and everyone involved.

Frankly, I hope this reports help the Paterno family sue Penn State back to the stone age. They deserve it.

And lastly;

js34603:Well, I personally refuse to believe anything in this report. After all it was prepared on behalf of Paterno's family by someone they paid! How can you trust that?

I'll stick with the Freeh report that Penn State paid someone to write on their behalf. You can trust them, they'd never cover anything up.